Interesting...changes everything, really...Lovejoy works across the street form me, more or less...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Randolph E. Schmid, Ap Science Writer – Thu Oct 1, 6:33 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The story of humankind is reaching back another million years as scientists learn more about "Ardi," a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor.
This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University.
Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.
"This is not that common ancestor, but it's the closest we have ever been able to come," said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
The lines that evolved into modern humans and living apes probably shared an ancestor 6 million to 7 million years ago, White said in a telephone interview.
But Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes, leading to the conclusion that the apes evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor.
A study of Ardi, under way since the first bones were discovered in 1994, indicates the species lived in the woodlands and could climb on all fours along tree branches, but the development of their arms and legs indicates they didn't spend much time in the trees. And they could walk upright, on two legs, when on the ground.
Formally dubbed Ardipithecus ramidus — which means root of the ground ape — the find is detailed in 11 research papers published Thursday by the journal Science.
"This is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution," said David Pilbeam, curator of paleoanthropology at Harvard's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.
"It is relatively complete in that it preserves head, hands, feet and some critical parts in between. It represents a genus plausibly ancestral to Australopithecus — itself ancestral to our genus Homo," said Pilbeam, who was not part of the research teams.
Scientists assembled the skeleton from 125 pieces.
Lucy, also found in Africa, thrived a million years after Ardi and was of the more human-like genus Australopithecus.
"In Ardipithecus we have an unspecialized form that hasn't evolved very far in the direction of Australopithecus. So when you go from head to toe, you're seeing a mosaic creature that is neither chimpanzee, nor is it human. It is Ardipithecus," said White.
White noted that Charles Darwin, whose research in the 19th century paved the way for the science of evolution, was cautious about the last common ancestor between humans and apes.
"Darwin said we have to be really careful. The only way we're really going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and find it. Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it," White said. "And, just like Darwin appreciated, evolution of the ape lineages and the human lineage has been going on independently since the time those lines split, since that last common ancestor we shared."
Some details about Ardi in the collection of papers:
• Ardi was found in Ethiopia's Afar Rift, where many fossils of ancient plants and animals have been discovered. Findings near the skeleton indicate that at the time it was a wooded environment. Fossils of 29 species of birds and 20 species of small mammals were found at the site.
• Geologist Giday WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos National Laboratory was able to use volcanic layers above and below the fossil to date it to 4.4 million years ago.
• Ardi's upper canine teeth are more like the stubby ones of modern humans than the long, sharp, pointed ones of male chimpanzees and most other primates. An analysis of the tooth enamel suggests a diverse diet, including fruit and other woodland-based foods such as nuts and leaves.
• Paleoanthropologist Gen Suwa of the University of Tokyo reported that Ardi's face had a projecting muzzle, giving her an ape-like appearance. But it didn't thrust forward quite as much as the lower faces of modern African apes do. Some features of her skull, such as the ridge above the eye socket, are quite different from those of chimpanzees. The details of the bottom of the skull, where nerves and blood vessels enter the brain, indicate that Ardi's brain was positioned in a way similar to modern humans, possibly suggesting that the hominid brain may have been already poised to expand areas involving aspects of visual and spatial perception.
• Ardi's hand and wrist were a mix of primitive traits and a few new ones, but they don't include the hallmark traits of the modern tree-hanging, knuckle-walking chimps and gorillas. She had relatively short palms and fingers which were flexible, allowing her to support her body weight on her palms while moving along tree branches, but she had to be a careful climber because she lacked the anatomical features that allow modern-day African apes to swing, hang and easily move through the trees.
• The pelvis and hip show the gluteal muscles were positioned so she could walk upright.
• Her feet were rigid enough for walking but still had a grasping big toe for use in climbing.
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and others.

Hines0wnz

10-08-2009, 05:43 PM

Verrrrrrry interesting.

tony hipchest

10-08-2009, 10:20 PM

im not quite sure exactly what this changes.

the silly misconception that man "evolved" from chimps or apes that all the uneducated subscribers to the theory of evolution have always clung to?

that one is a no-brainer.

i thought it was just common knowledge that both species evolved from a common ancestor, but at some point in time they branched apart like the branches in a tree. :hunch:

to think that lucy had ancestors, or even ardi is nothing groundbreaking.

if this planet would be around for another 300 years, there is no telling what excavations and research would reveal, and how many hypothesis's and theories would be proven true.

some people just dont need a physical bone to know or prove what is "true" though. some people can easilly and blindly accept the truth as it is, based on faith alone...

and before anyone gets their feathers in a ruffle, i am NOT discounting the theory of evolution (a theory i DO believe in and subscribe to)... just the c0ckamaimy notion that man evolved from common day gorillas or chimpanzees. HUGE difference.

Preacher

10-08-2009, 10:48 PM

Wow.

If I were to make the assumptions in my work that are made there... I would get ripped apart in my seminar work. Once again, It is the evidence of Dogma over observation.

There is no difference between what the catholic church did in the dark ages and evolutionists do now... Subscribe to the dogma, or get called a heretic.

WOW there is some bad assumptive logic in this article.

devilsdancefloor

10-08-2009, 11:01 PM

Wow.

If I were to make the assumptions in my work that are made there... I would get ripped apart in my seminar work. Once again, It is the evidence of Dogma over observation.

There is no difference between what the catholic church did in the dark ages and evolutionists do now... Subscribe to the dogma, or get called a heretic.

WOW there is some bad assumptive logic in this article.

:iagree:

tony hipchest

10-08-2009, 11:03 PM

please elaborate preach...

im "assuming" since lovejoy works across the street from revs, he couldnt possibly be wrong, just by "association" alone....

:popcorn:

(personally, i LOVE how revs uses the FACT that lovejoy works across the street from him, to lend more credence to his OPINION that this "changes everything" .)

::laughing:

holy shit... lend me an oxygen mask!

the ever expanding 'big bang' ego is thrusting me into the stratosphere and i can no longer breath...

GBMelBlount

10-09-2009, 05:59 AM

i thought it was just common knowledge that both species evolved from a common ancestor, but at some point in time they branched apart like the branches in a tree. :hunch:

[/B]

So are you implying that this theory makes sense to you? I certainly hope not.

revefsreleets

10-09-2009, 06:04 AM

Errrr...first off, benchwarmer, I pointed out that Lovejoy works across the street from me simply because I think it's cool that the guy is local. A real reeeeeeeeeach to try and attach other attributes to that statement, but, well, that's what you do...

Secondly, this is a yahoo article, not a scholarly report. It was posted for reasons of brevity, nothing more...

Finally, to downplay, or minimize the importance of the discovery of the oldest human ancestors skeleton is absurd.

Since anything I post is subject to ad hominem, I'll relate some quotes from the scientists working on this project:

"This find is far more important than Lucy," said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. "It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between."

"What Ardi tells us is there was this vast intermediate stage in our evolution that nobody knew about," said Owen Lovejoy, an anatomist at Kent State University in Ohio, who analyzed Ardi's bones below the neck. "It changes everything."

Stony Brook's Jungers added, "These finds are incredibly important, and given the state of preservation of the bones, what they did was nothing short of heroic.

But this is just the beginning of the story."

Preacher

10-09-2009, 02:37 PM

Errrr...first off, benchwarmer, I pointed out that Lovejoy works across the street from me simply because I think it's cool that the guy is local. A real reeeeeeeeeach to try and attach other attributes to that statement, but, well, that's what you do...

Secondly, this is a yahoo article, not a scholarly report. It was posted for reasons of brevity, nothing more...

Finally, to downplay, or minimize the importance of the discovery of the oldest human ancestors skeleton is absurd.

Since anything I post is subject to ad hominem, I'll relate some quotes from the scientists working on this project:

"This find is far more important than Lucy," said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. "It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between."

"What Ardi tells us is there was this vast intermediate stage in our evolution that nobody knew about," said Owen Lovejoy, an anatomist at Kent State University in Ohio, who analyzed Ardi's bones below the neck. "It changes everything."

Stony Brook's Jungers added, "These finds are incredibly important, and given the state of preservation of the bones, what they did was nothing short of heroic.

But this is just the beginning of the story."

Hey Rev... Do you have access to any of the peer-reviewed work concerning this discovery? I would love to read some journal articles concerning it. My first post is concerning snippets of comments, and I realize that. I wanna know how the peer-reviewed stuff deals with it.

Indo

10-09-2009, 03:40 PM

I, for one, find this to be fascinating (remember when Spock used to say that?!)

As Revs pointed out, this appeared in yahoo news. Not really a bastion of scientific reporting. The real articles (actual scientific papers---I believe there were 12 of them) appeared in Science, which is absolutely the most difficult journal to publish in (I know, bad grammar with the dangling preposition and all). The other very difficult journal to publish in is the British journal Nature. If you can get your research published in either of these, you are afforded some fairly large measure of respect in the scientific community as they are the most harshly refereed journals in the world. And no, their referees don't play favorites to Marsha! (peer-reviewers are referred to as referees in the large journals... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refereed)

Preach, I'm also in agreement with you that I want to see the original articles because these "mainstream scientific reporters" often throw bias into their reports in so many ways. For example, a very important part of a research article may often be "cut up" and edited simply to fill available space allocated to the "science reporter" that he/she doesn't include it. It makes me crazy, but it is what it is---up to us to find the original and read it so that we may derive an educated opinion for ourselves.

I'll try to find the originals, but they may not be readily available on-line.

Indo

10-09-2009, 03:48 PM

Here's a link to the Abstract of one of the articles in Science. Unfortunately I do not have time to Register on the Science website to be able to look at the whole article right now. Maybe someone else does?

one only has to drive thru WV where they just started walking upright a few years ago to find proof that yes some people evolved from apes.

Preacher

10-09-2009, 05:11 PM

I, for one, find this to be fascinating (remember when Spock used to say that?!)
Preach, I'm also in agreement with you that I want to see the original articles because these "mainstream scientific reporters" often throw bias into their reports in so many ways. For example, a very important part of a research article may often be "cut up" and edited simply to fill available space allocated to the "science reporter" that he/she doesn't include it. It makes me crazy, but it is what it is---up to us to find the original and read it so that we may derive an educated opinion for ourselves.

I'll try to find the originals, but they may not be readily available on-line.

Exactly!

Matter of fact, the entire "God is dead" movement of the 70's was actually something that got lifted out of theological journals AFTER THE DISCUSSION WAS OVER. It was completely mutilated and twisted, then printed in Time I believe.

SIDENOTE: I know you say your a doctor... medical or research? I am asking because I noticed how you bolded the name of the Journal, and was wondering what form your profession demands for publishing.

In theology, it is Turabian: then Chicago Style Manual where Turabian doesn't specify.

SteelTalons

10-09-2009, 05:21 PM

and before anyone gets their feathers in a ruffle, i am NOT discounting the theory of evolution (a theory i DO believe in and subscribe to)... just the c0ckamaimy notion that man evolved from common day gorillas or chimpanzees. HUGE difference.

This.

I dunno how many times Ive heard, well if evolution is real why aren't chimps/apes like us then?

Missing the whole damn point they evolved for other purposes and we went more for the brain. Chimps can climb their ass off, apes are strong as hell, and people are very intelligent compared to any of them.

Thats just the way shit broke. Vestigial organs is evidence of that... It just happens gradually you pick up traits that promote the species survival and needs, old ones drop out that are no longer needed, and it keeps ticking along.

Hell we'll probably have a race of real ugly fat people and a race of skinny attractive people before its all said and done, lol.

GBMelBlount

10-09-2009, 06:23 PM

This.

Missing the whole damn point they evolved for other purposes and we went more for the brain. .. It just happens gradually you pick up traits that promote the species survival and needs, old ones drop out that are no longer needed, and it keeps ticking along.

So are you saying you believe that we have the same ancestors as apes and simply evolved differently?

tony hipchest

10-09-2009, 06:25 PM

Errrr...first off, benchwarmer, I pointed out that Lovejoy works across the street from me simply because I think it's cool that the guy is local. A real reeeeeeeeeach to try and attach other attributes to that statement, but, well, that's what you do...

Secondly, this is a yahoo article, not a scholarly report. It was posted for reasons of brevity, nothing more...

Finally, to downplay, or minimize the importance of the discovery of the oldest human ancestors skeleton is absurd.

woah... easy there hoss.

i dont think anyone who believed man evolved from apes is in any position to call anyone a "benchwarmer".

it appears from your 2 posts that you cribbed an experts quote verbatim and passed it on as your own highly educated opinion. but well, thats what you do.

you failed to answer exactly how (you thought) it "changes everything".

and your interpretive skills failed. it wasnt the importance of the discovery that was minimized... just your take on it.

this is a HUGE find, much like water on the moon or king tuts tomb. as far as artifacts go, it probably could be considered priceless along with the likes of the mona lisa, king tuts mask, or the mona lisa (or even lucy).

everybody who believes in the theory of evolution should know there are always missing links yet to be discovered.

its really simple...1.....2.....3...._....5...._....7

the missing link is obviously 4 and 6 and anyone who believes and understands, doesnt need to see the numbers to know that.

the discovery helps solidify what i thought was common beliefs on the evolution of humans. as for "changing everything" it does nothing to change those who believe in creation 5000 years ago. it changes nothing for those of us who have alwasy believes that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor long before lucy.

it really only changes things for the small uneducated niche that still believes man evolved from chimps.

GBMelBlount

10-09-2009, 06:31 PM

the discovery helps solidify what i thought was common beliefs on the evolution of humans. as for "changing everything" it does nothing to change those who believe in creation 5000 years ago. it changes nothing for those of us who have alwasy believes that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor long before lucy.

Tony, is there really a big difference in the theory of branching from the same ancestor vs. evolving from apes?

tony hipchest

10-09-2009, 06:31 PM

So are you implying that this theory makes sense to you? I certainly hope not.

So are you saying you believe that we have the same ancestors as apes and simply evolved differently?
methinks you are starting to understand the concept behind this whole "theory of evolution" thing. :tap:

Tony, is there really a big difference in the theory of branching from the same ancestor vs. evolving from apes?

from a scientific and laws of nature point of view.....?

HUGE difference. :yep:

Hammer Of The GODS

10-09-2009, 06:33 PM

.
This pick sums it up for me........

http://www.indebraendt.dk/images/motivators/atheism.jpg

.

GBMelBlount

10-09-2009, 07:30 PM

methinks you are starting to understand the concept behind this whole "theory of evolution" thing.

methinks that you may not understand that either way, the evidence simply doesn't support it. :coffee:

tony hipchest

10-09-2009, 07:41 PM

methinks that you may not understand that either way, the evidence simply doesn't support it. :coffee:see revs...?

case in point.

revefsreleets

10-10-2009, 03:42 AM

Interesting...now, by merely paraphrasing, you'll bash me over the head with AH attacks.

Cute.

Have any bunker maps you'd like to add to the debate?

Preacher

10-10-2009, 04:33 AM

.
This pick sums it up for me........

http://www.indebraendt.dk/images/motivators/atheism.jpg

.

Sad...

because in my church, you neither have to dress up nor apologize for "being human".

Guess misrepresentations of Christianity are about as common as misrepresentations of evolution.

revefsreleets

10-10-2009, 08:47 AM

In my case, I'm not getting into another argument about fact versus fiction...I just thought the new discovery was incredibly interesting.

Indo

10-10-2009, 05:07 PM

I'll be honest---I have not yet read all of the articles in the journal
but what I find most interesting is the change in the thinking that man evolved from apes/chimps. It now appears clear with the discovery of ardi that we both evolved from some other hominid that came before chimps and humans. It now qppears clear that it's not so simple as A developed to B developed into C. Rather, the divergence in the species came at some time prior to A, and A and B developed in parallel ( at the same time)...

It appears almost as if the precursor to what ultimately developed into humans and apes/chimps did so along Darwinian prediction of "Survival of the Fittest". One species developed to be able to live in the tress, and the other developed a larger brain while giving up the ability to move rapidly thru the treetops.

It seems that both "plans" have worked to some extent

Preach, I am a medical doctor (surgeon). I have been involved in some "bench" research, but now strictly deal with patients. I have always been fascinated by paleontology (among other things---astrology, study of atoms and smaller particles, Quantum theory, it goes on and on...). My profession----and keeping up with all of the research coming out----demands critical reading of the literature and knowing which journals are refereed and which aren't. I tend to look at all "science' in the daily newspapers with a skeptical eye until I can find the original scientific publication. This finding, published in Science is significant, IMO

SteelTalons

10-10-2009, 07:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007

Intelligence is awareness of ignorance. Stupidity is ignorance of ignorance. Think about it.

To deny evolution is to deny a direct observation. It's like denying the sky is blue while refusing to look up.

Truth is not a democracy.

Don't teach ideas just because they are different; teach ideas because they are supported by evidence.

You can lead the ignorant to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

Think about it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/thunderf00t

The true beauty of a self-inquiring sentient universe is lost on those who elect to walk the intellectually vacuous path of comfortable paranoid fantasies.

I like both these youtubers a whole lot...

And if you want to hear from a more... Well known source the atheist perspective, I'd advise you look up videos of Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. So you can see empirical case against a deity and the illogical nature of religion in general.

Plus they have written a lot of great books.

Not getting into a religious debate with you when the horse has already been beaten to death, you can have your own opinions as far as politics go but you cant have your own facts. And religion is based off of FAITH, where Atheism is merely reserving an opinion on how things come to be or what happens until rational proof surfaces...

and all sniping aside, i was just curious of how you felt it changed everything, as i believe it changes nothing.

its just like archaological evidence points to king david, and stories of sodom and gomorrah, moses, etc... being true, yet people still write them of as myths, fictional characters, fairy tales, etc...

i am of a very rare breed that thinks science supports the bible and the bible supports science.

i read the 1st page of the bible and see the big bang theory, creation of the earth, and evolution of man to modern civilization explained in less than a thousand words, and its about as accurate as millions of words that hundereds of scientists have followed with.

how could man know that much about the universe 3000 years ago w/o divine intervention?

i have no problem taking shots from both sides of the "aisle" on this one, as i feel i have fact and truth to back me up.

this existence is made up of what is, and what is observed, plus the interpretations of both.

MACH1

10-10-2009, 08:57 PM

how could man know that much about the universe 3000 years ago w/o divine intervention?

Aliens. :chuckle:

SteelTalons

10-10-2009, 10:06 PM

methinks you are starting to understand the concept behind this whole "theory of evolution" thing. :tap:

Aliens. :chuckle:
yep...i think the stargate series pretty much sums up our existance...:popcorn:

tony hipchest

10-11-2009, 12:27 AM

...estelle getty?

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/monkay.jpg

steelpinstripe72

10-11-2009, 07:41 PM

Sad...

because in my church, you neither have to dress up nor apologize for "being human".

Guess misrepresentations of Christianity are about as common as misrepresentations of evolution.

Beat me to it. Heck, I went to church in a Steelers jersey this morning.

Preacher

10-11-2009, 07:51 PM

Preach, I am a medical doctor (surgeon). I have been involved in some "bench" research, but now strictly deal with patients. I have always been fascinated by paleontology (among other things---astrology, study of atoms and smaller particles, Quantum theory, it goes on and on...). My profession----and keeping up with all of the research coming out----demands critical reading of the literature and knowing which journals are refereed and which aren't. I tend to look at all "science' in the daily newspapers with a skeptical eye until I can find the original scientific publication. This finding, published in Science is significant, IMO

Cool... My current doctorate is also a "professional doctorate" (D.Min). I am however, in the middle of a Ph.D program (stupid enough to do both a research and a professional doctorate). One thing that has fascinated and somewhat shocked me is the cross-breeding of disciplines at this level of work. Just how much philosophy, economics, psychology, and pretty much every other "soft science" plays in.

Tell me, do you ever get the urge to go back and get into the research side of your discipline?

Oh yeah.. M.D. is considered a "Terminal Degree" right? If I remember it is.

Preacher

10-11-2009, 07:59 PM

http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007

http://www.youtube.com/user/thunderf00t

I like both these youtubers a whole lot...

And if you want to hear from a more... Well known source the atheist perspective, I'd advise you look up videos of Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. So you can see empirical case against a deity and the illogical nature of religion in general.

Plus they have written a lot of great books.

Not getting into a religious debate with you when the horse has already been beaten to death, you can have your own opinions as far as politics go but you cant have your own facts. And religion is based off of FAITH, where Atheism is merely reserving an opinion on how things come to be or what happens until rational proof surfaces...

Other than... Shit like this:

My simple response (because I am still watching football and don't want to go in depth), is that there is no "absolute fact." Most absolute facts we try to hang on to end up being proved wrong. Speed of light constant? Nope. It changes. The finding that light is both energy and material shocked the world, because it means EVERYTHING we thought about material is wrong. There are so many assumptions built into the basis of evolution that every new finding is now read back into the assumptions. There is no true critique anymore, because the dogma of evolution must be believed as a beginning to the discussion. What if it WASNT evolution?

I am not even talking about God here. That is an issue of faith. I am talking about the ability critique within a discipline. (Least, that has been my exposure from college, and what I have seen and read).

I laugh when I here about "evolution" being observed fact. Observed fact is watching a chemical reaction. Evolution has not been watched nor seen. We have different things which have been drawn together by a theory. A theory is philosophical. It is my belief that the philosophical aspect has fallen into a fallacy of similarity. Just because things are 98 percent similar, doesn't necessitate one coming from the other, or both coming from a common ancestor. It necessitates that both are 98 percnet similar. Anything more than that becomes conjecture. Some conjecture may be completely reasonable, other may not be.

It is on that basis, that I completely accept intra-species evolution, or adaptation, but reject cross-species evolution, because standing outside the dogma of evolution, the connections of the observations does not make sense to me.

Funniest thing about all of this, it has really driven me to think about going over to Berkley and taking some more biology classes after I finish my OT work. Maybe even do some post-graduate biology work.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold

10-11-2009, 09:51 PM

The thing I have always found interesting is why why haven't found literally millions of transition fossils? We supposedly have the link between reptiles and birds with Archaeopteryx, but there should be literally tons of similar "transition" animals.

tony hipchest

10-11-2009, 11:06 PM

The thing I have always found interesting is why why haven't found literally millions of transition fossils? We supposedly have the link between reptiles and birds with Archaeopteryx, but there should be literally tons of similar "transition" animals.simple geology.

anyone who thinks a fossil is just made in a million years is kidding themselves.

even then, its like finding a needle in a haystack.

MACH1

10-11-2009, 11:21 PM

Dino's were around for 75 million years,modern humans have been around for only 120,000 years.

I'd say the dinosaurs have the numbers.

xfl2001fan

10-15-2009, 03:01 PM

Dino's were around for 75 million years,modern humans have been around for only 120,000 years.

I'd say the dinosaurs have the numbers.

That's based on the assumption that they lived similar life spans that animals/critters live now...and mass produced. For all we know, a single Dinosaur could have had a lifespan over well over 1000 years...and if that was the case, then the need to procreate would likely be on a much slower cycle. The size of the creatures skeletons indicates just how large they were...meaning that they would have to consume more food. Even without mankind around to ruin the earth with our technologically advanced pollution (and I'm not a uber-ecologist/greenback) there would still need to be lots of space...either between the animals themselves...or the roaming herds would need to have large masses of land to support their food. Odds are, just based on size alone, there weren't all that many (relatively speaking) dinorsaurs as there would be...say...deer on the part of the the world that is North America.

MACH1

10-15-2009, 03:26 PM

They can tell how fast they grew and how long they lived by the bones. T-Rex had a estimated life span of 40-50 years. And yes, they were warm blooded. They were nesting animals and probably cared for their young for a few years, till they were ready to bread again. Not unlike elephants.They were bigger, but so were the land masses back then.

So to compare the population of 150 million years of dino's to the population of early man or their ancestors, dino's would greatly out number them. Therefor, there would be more dinosaur fossils to find.

Dino 6 Rings

10-15-2009, 04:46 PM

Its Called the Theory of Evolution. Not FACT of Evolution.

So now, they find some new Monkey bones, or at least release the information about the bones that they found crushed to pieces years ago and put back together, and now it "changes everything" and I'm supposed to just Sign On and believe that NOW they got it right? Really?

Here's my theory.

There is a planet called earth, bunch of different stuff lives on it, that stuff eventually dies at some point, new stuff comes along.

As for Where the Planet came from, who "made" the planet or the life on the planet, I am going to wait for my answer. I Got a feeling in the end, I'll get the answer I need.

The most interesting thing about this "discovery" is Now it "changes everything" which is so much like science. "world is flat!"...wait a second..."world is round!"

Sun revolves around the earth...wait a second, not the earth revolves around the sun!

Polio is CURED! Oh wait....not really.

Maybe instead of fcking around with old bones and trying to disprove any type of Divine intervention, they could spend their freaking time trying to figure out a way to travel in space that doesn't involve Rocket Fuel and astronauts having to sleep for Years at a time to get anywhere worth going!

Just saying...

I'm still pisssed I don't have a flying car!

JackHammer

10-15-2009, 07:10 PM

I have disproportionately large thumbs. Proof that a monkey was my uncle.

stlrtruck

10-16-2009, 07:31 AM

I'm still pisssed I don't have a flying car!

I'd be happy with a flying motorcycle (that should be scientifically easier to figure out).

Fire Haley

10-16-2009, 10:38 AM

what I find most interesting is the change in the thinking that man evolved from apes/chimps. It now appears clear with the discovery of ardi that we both evolved from some other hominid that came before chimps and humans. It now qppears clear that it's not so simple as A developed to B developed into C. Rather, the divergence in the species came at some time prior to A, and A and B developed in parallel ( at the same time)...

It appears almost as if the precursor to what ultimately developed into humans and apes/chimps did so along Darwinian prediction of "Survival of the Fittest". One species developed to be able to live in the tress, and the other developed a larger brain while giving up the ability to move rapidly thru the treetops.

It seems that both "plans" have worked to some extent

Exactly - and even older bipedal creatures that we call our ancestors are still waiting to be found and new theories will arise.

That's how science is supposed to work - new discoveries should lead to changes in thinking.

Fire Haley

10-16-2009, 10:40 AM

Here's my theory.

There is a planet called earth, bunch of different stuff lives on it, that stuff eventually dies at some point, new stuff comes along.

Here's my Theory.

Alien astronauts would look like gods to any goat herders 10 thousand years ago or more. I still say that's the most likely explanation for all the "sky god" myths that have perpetuated since then. All the earth's religions have "divine beings" descending from the sky and screwing our women.
We ain't some intergalactic truck stop - time to fight back and get good money for our breeders next time they stop by.

MACH1

10-16-2009, 10:59 AM

Here's my Theory.

Alien astronauts would look like gods to any goat herders 10 thousand years ago or more. I still say that's the most likely explanation for all the "sky god" myths that have perpetuated since then. All the earth's religions have "divine beings" descending from the sky and screwing our women.
We ain't some intergalactic truck stop - time to fight back and get good money for our breeders next time they stop by.

So your saying the stargates are real. :chuckle:

Fire Haley

10-16-2009, 11:04 AM

God spoke directly to Moses and the Israelites

Behold! I come to you in the thickness of the cloud, so that the people will hear as I speak to you, and they will also believe in you forever. (Exodus 19:9)

I find this "face-to-face meeting" fascinating.

GBMelBlount

10-16-2009, 11:34 AM

I laugh when I here about "evolution" being observed fact. Observed fact is watching a chemical reaction. Evolution has not been watched nor seen. We have different things which have been drawn together by a theory. A theory is philosophical. It is my belief that the philosophical aspect has fallen into a fallacy of similarity.

Just because things are 98 percent similar, doesn't necessitate one coming from the other, or both coming from a common ancestor. It necessitates that both are 98 percent similar. Anything more than that becomes conjecture.

Who created the Internet? Or did it evolve?
It evolved... to be honest.

Al Gore didn't lie concerning the internet... rather, he VASTLY EXAGGERATED his role. If I remember right, he was part of the committee which changed over Darpanet to the internet.

tony hipchest

10-20-2009, 09:01 PM

i post this not to prove a point, or to say i agree or disagree (my stance is pretty much in the middle).

its just an interesting take related to the subject that some here may enjoy (althought the author does himself no service with the heated buzzwords sinister, evil, and rabid in the 1st 2 paragraphs)...

Creationism Claims to Be a Science--but it Can't Pass the Lightbulb Test

The sinister aspect of the so-called creation science that has sprung up in our midst is not that it espouses Christian theology; after all, there are many scientists and theologians who can easily reconcile Christianity and science. The evil wrought by the neocreationists is far more
subtle, in that they are trying to pass off fundamentalist dogma under the guise of science. They've learned the language, as it were, and they're trying to con people into thinking they're being objective when objectivity is really the farthest thing from their minds.

All but the most rabid creationists are willing to concede that the principles of evolution are valid. After all, we've actually seen them in action. We've seen species compete for survival; we've seen some species become extinct because they can't adapt to changing conditions. We've also seen how some species adapt very well, and thrive because of it. Bugs that are immune to a given pesticide breed more of their kind, which means that new pesticides have to be developed every few generations. I've even heard of a species of profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfilterroach that has adapted to living exclusively in the backs of television sets, though this may just be an urban myth.

These principles are impossible to ignore. What we haven't seen directly, however, is the billions of years of evolution that produced the wide variety of plants and animals out of the protein-rich primordial seas; we've had to infer it from chemical, anatomical and paleontological evidence we've discovered along the way. These are the weak points of evolutionary theory, and even experts admit they don't know all the intermediate steps from there to here. This is where the "creation scientists" attack.

Evolution is only a theory, they say. This is true. So is gravity. So is relativity. This does not mean you should step off rooftops or stand at ground-zero during an H-bomb test. The word "theory" in scientific parlance means something quite different than it does in general speech, where it's often confused with "hypothesis," and the creationists make a big deal out of that popular misunderstanding.

long article. click link.

Preacher

10-21-2009, 02:51 AM

i post this not to prove a point, or to say i agree or disagree (my stance is pretty much in the middle).

its just an interesting take related to the subject that some here may enjoy (althought the author does himself no service with the heated buzzwords sinister, evil, and rabid in the 1st 2 paragraphs)...

Creationism Claims to Be a Science--but it Can't Pass the Lightbulb Test

One glaring mistake on his part... Light is not constant.
Scientists are finding that it is variable (and no, I am not referring to c-decay theory by Setterfield, which is based more on faith than fact). http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html Here is an article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html) from later on that has built on that study. This article discusses Alpha and its possible variants, which, by the way, adds many possibilities to string theory.

Here is another article (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/epfd-ltt081905.php) ]where they discuss changes to the speed of light... even... TO THE SPEED OF A BICYCLE :jawdrop: How in teh WORLD? The article itself is about using it in instruments, toys, and tools (computers, wires, etc), but shows variance in light speed.

I am not by any means claiming the change in the speed of light supports a 10,000 year theory. I am however, claiming that the basic underpinning of his argument is faulty. The speed of light is variable.

--- Sidenote... My links and the possibilities of string theory and quantum mechanics are fascinating I have found.

It reminds me of some of the Mathematicians and Quantum physicists who have argued for "anti-reality". I go find those quotes tomorrow and post them.

Preacher

10-21-2009, 03:13 PM

I believe everything you do is assumption. Some people need to believe there is a bigger reason why we are here, why we exist or why we get up every morning.

You have never read my work.... so you can't make that assumption. I am deciding on writing my dissertation on either the origins of second temple theology and its formulation through the intertestimental material, or the reworking of the soveriegn vassal covenant treaty introduction in the intertestimental period.

When I am finished with it (probably about 4 years, the way I am going now) you can get it through interlibrary loan, and make statements concerning my research.

Until then, please do make assumptions concerning my academic work--which is exactly what I was referring to here.